The James scandal just keeps on giving

Here's the question you were asked.

Diogenes said:
Care to elaborate on that assertion?
Click to expand...

It was in reference to this post of yours:

Poor Richard Saunders said:
Actually, lawfaremedia does a pretty good job of looking at the law and explaining it. The problem is T.A. ignores what they actually wrote so he clan cling to his cult.
Click to expand...

I'll understand if you keep dodging, of course. No big deal; I'm just curious.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
The experts say you are full of shit.

What Must Prosecutors Prove in Trump’s NY Trial?

Some in-the-weeds questions on which the New York Trump trial depends.
www.lawfaremedia.org www.lawfaremedia.org
Click to expand...
You’re wrong again. Don’t you get tired of that?

“A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.”

“There’s no reference there to the other crime having actually been committed—just to the intent to carry it out or cover it up.”

You didn’t even read your own citation again
 
Last edited:
Diogenes said:
Here's the question you were asked.



It was in reference to this post of yours:



I'll understand if you keep dodging, of course. No big deal; I'm just curious.
Click to expand...
OMG... The spelling police are worse than the library police.

You still haven't explained why the GOP controlled House is on vacation when they haven't done their work.
 
Damocles said:
Yeah. Because they want to "get" Letitia, they plotted to get her to harbor a fugitive in a house that she owned but only pretended to live in. They also plotted to have her commit fraud, while she was prosecuting someone else for the same thing. Those sneaky bastiges, tricking her into committing crimes so that they could prosecute her for the crimes they tricked her into committing... You know, because she's above the law.... So... Stop it. Jerks.

At some point, as the crimes pile up, even you must realize that sometimes folks prosecute people for crimes because they committed the crimes.
Click to expand...
There’s no evidence that she had any knowledge of her grandniece’s MISDEMEANOR offenses or her probationary status. The authorities didn’t give a shit enough to look for her or extradite her, called her an “absconder”, not “fugitive”.

If James gets convicted of fraud, then you can refer to her as a felon, if that’s the case. I’m sure you already refer to Trump as the felon he is, right?
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
I am curious if you bothered to actually read that article. It would appear you didn't since the entire thrust of this article is that intent to commit the other crime is all that is required.

Bragg must only prove A beyond a reasonable doubt, along with the intent to commit B, that potentially leaves prosecutors with more wiggle room to secure a conviction. Jurors might not buy with 99 percent certainty that the object crime was committed, but they could still vote to convict if they believe the intent was there.
[snip]
There’s no reference there to the other crime having actually been committed—just to the intent to carry it out or cover it up. “The way that I have always thought of this particular statute is that the element is intent to commit a crime,” Rebecca Roiphe, a professor at New York Law School and former assistant district attorney in the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office, explained.
[snip]
In fact, the New York Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court, considered this issue in People v. Taveras—and found that only intent is required.
[snip]
As in the Trump case, in Thompson, the Manhattan district attorney charged § 175.10 without charging the underlying object offense. Here, the appeals court found that the district attorney was not required to prove that the object offense had been committed.
[snip]
Pointing to McCumiskey and Crane, the appeals court held that “the jury's not guilty verdict on the counts of insurance fraud did not necessarily negate an essential element of the falsifying business records in the first degree counts.”
[snip]
Do all the jurors have to agree on which option among the three grouped in box B? An overview of the relevant law suggests that no, the jury does not need to be unanimous as to the object offense.
[snip]

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit blessed this interpretation of the statute in De Vonish v. Keane, writing, "A specific intent to commit a particular crime upon entry is not a material element of the offense under New York law. ... Rather, the State need prove only a general criminal intent”


The article you linked to shows your position is completely bogus and not supported by the law. It seems you are so deep in the cult you can't even see reality. Not only have NY courts upheld that the underlying crime doesn't have to have been committed, the Federal appeals court agreed that criminal intent is all that is required.
Click to expand...
He NEVER fucking reads his own citations. It’s hilarious to watch him reference them when they continually contradict the point he’s desperately trying to make.

Pathetic, in a way.
 
FastLane said:
James has 2 homes in Virginia. Both of them are rented to her relatives and one relative is a felon the other is a FUGITIVE from North Carolina. Great family.
Click to expand...
“Fugitive”. LOL

Misdemeanors that are so low down the scale, the authorities refer to her as an “absconder”.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top